The Truth About Cars (TTAC) has consistently criticized domestic automakers for some pretty basic mistakes: lack of focus, glacial product cycles, bland design and poor customer communications. I would be a hypocrite if I didn’t admit that this website suffers from these problems. But it is my full intention to address ALL of these challenges, so that we can keep faith with our basic brand promise. So, here’s where we’ve screwed-up and here’s what we’re going to do about it. Provided, that is, you agree.
I realize that the remains a major disconnect between TTAC’s new “parked url” look (ouch!) and our previous Zen rock garden gestalt. Not to mention the functionality issues plaguing the comment’s box and other areas. When I asked for your feedback on the new site design, you bloody well gave it. I immediately saw the error of my ways and promised to sort it all out.
After securing new funding, I’ve purchased www.ttac.com (active now) and re-hired the people who designed the original website. Starting next week, Redwing Studio will begin returning TTAC to its minimalist look and feel, and restoring lost functionality.
We’re not talking about a retro mod. We’re moving forward, in a new direction. And it’s important that you understand where we’re headed.
Since its inception, TTAC has provided readers with 800-word reviews and editorials. The mix has attracted a passionate, literate and engaged audience– as you’d expect for a no-holds-barred automotive website whose writing style requires high school or better reading comprehension.
While I’m proud of our literary output and fierce editorial independence, commercial reality demands that we must shift our focus to a more populist perspective. In other words, TTAC is set to become a car shopping site. Well, not entirely.
Here’s the idea.
TTAC will have two home pages. The first will be the “public” page (i.e. the one newbies land on). Home page one will have a proper review, author and keyword search function. It will also display ten review excerpts and the usual link to the full review (“more”). The blurbettes will include star ratings, and links to model specifications, pricing, comparisons and a car brokerage service. The column currently occupied by editorials will [eventually] be filled with ads and shopping-related links.
In short, TTAC’s new home page will offer a one-stop shop for consumers looking to research, compare and buy a car, using truly independent advice. Think of it as Consumer Reports with attitude. What’s more, we will stay in touch with “our” shoppers to assure a proper quality service and cater to their ongoing needs.
There will also be a second home page for you, our faithful, hardcore audience. “TTAC classic” will return to the “old” format of reviews and editorials stacked in strict chronological order.
Rest assured, the content itself will not change. The editorials will continue apace. They’ll be just as feisty and high-brow as ever. But the split will allow us to create a [let’s face it] less intellectual and more highly focused revenue-generating TTAC for a large number of car shoppers. Given our financial situation, this consumer service is critical to our continued editorial independence.
Needless to say, this new focus will take TTAC into uncharted waters. But my father taught me that business isn’t risky. People are risky. Well, some are and some aren’t.
The writers, editors, financiers, programmers and readers of this website are the most steadfast people I’ve ever met. To a man (and woman), they believe that telling the truth about cars is an inherently virtuous pursuit. They know that their work elevates the souls of those it touches– even if the truth hurts. They understand that those who have a vested interest in falsehood, half-truths and misdirection actively oppose our efforts.
I believe in the people who make TTAC possible. And I believe that there’s nothing wrong with taking our mission into the mainstream. As long as we tell the truth to the only people who really matter– the people who buy, use and (hopefully) love cars– we will be rewarded with their trust and patronage.
Now it’s your turn. Tell us where TTAC’s gone wrong– and may be about to go wrong. Tell us where TTAC’s gone right– and how we can capitalize on our strengths. Should we start reviewing used cars? Do we need better car photographs? Should we drop editorials entirely? Is there a killer ap we could bring to car shopping? Feel free to comment on any aspect of the site’s past, present or future.
After all, you are TTAC’s “300:” the automotive alphas whose ongoing support defend and protect us from those who would ignore us, co-opt us, or happily watch us disappear into the ether. Once again, we need your help.
Do not drop the editorials!
Kudos to you for not only realizing change is needed but also for asking our opinion!
The first thing that comes to mind is please bring back the edit function!!!
thanks
As I believe someone has mentioned before, I’d love to see pictures of the actual cars being reviewed, not just press photos.
Yeah the old one was better.I like the editorials I only glance at the reviews unless it’t a car/truck I might be interested in.
PLEASE!bring back edit.
A couple of reviews on 2 to 6 year old cars would generate a lot of interesting comments.
Of the hundreds of TTAC readers I,ll bet a good pecentage of us have a fun car,stashed in the garage.Maybe be a project car or a classic maybe old maybe new.
With snow going away up here in the north cars are coming out of the garage.I,m shocked at some of the vehicles that people prize.
I think stories and comments from folks that stash the car of their passion,would make interesting reading.
Lets not forget that TTAC is international, and
while I relize you gotta pay the bills.Remember us folks north of the border,are also consumers,and if you could remind your advertisers of that fact it would be appreciated
I don’t think you should be the least bit defensive about having to addressing the realities of business. Furthermore, your two tier solution seems like a good one.
As far as a site wishlist, sometimes when I have an automotive question, I would love the opportunity to ask your other readers.
John
I second the photo comment. Also, every car review should have a quick specs section.
Also, one thing I wish every website would do, is a leaderboard. Storage Review has such list, and while it’s easier to pick out clear leaders in price and performance among hard drives, TTAC has never shied away from saying one car is outright better than another. It’s always amused me how Car and Driver will have a six-car comparison and never use the term “car x is worse than car y”. A leaderboard could take the form of a continuously updated “best of”.
I didn’t realize we were in the soul saving business here…
I think used car reviews would be a great idea. Talked about that in my blog, based on some mini-reviews over at autosavant.net.
http://www.truedelta.com/blog/?p=63
Key question: where can an enthusiast on a budget find great driving cars that the marketplace forgot, and thus can be picked up for a song? The same might also be answered for other segments of buyers.
Though I’m either the highest ranked member of the “Less Intellectual” elite or the lowest common denominator of the “Informed”, I’m thankful that my opinion still matters.
I recommend never dropping the editorials because they are what constitutes the “Truth” portion of the “The Truth About Cars” title. I understand that the automotive reviews are important, but the editorials allow us to see into the industry in ways that lowly Seattle dwelling individuals thousands of miles away from automotive consequence, such as myself, could never do while keeping their day jobs. I ask that this blasphemous subject never be broached again.
At the risk of sounding tacky, how about setting up a small “If you would like to donate to TTAC” link? Providing either full disclosure or complete anonymity for donors in the name of ethics, I would be willing to forego (Farago?) a couple of five dollar lattes in the name of TTAC success. I almost feel guilty taking part in this amazing site without giving back something other than my stellar comments. Donation, not subscription. I’m not sure if this option has been discussed before, but why not? (Donations from Dr. Zetsche, A. Mulally, B. Lutz, C. Ghosn, etc. not accepted)
Finally, click on the ads, people!
RF, if you drop the editorials, my life will become boring and mundane. About three times a day I check the site for new reviews, editorials and reader postings. TTAC is truly a beacon of truth and a respite for the ordinary.
You and the TTAC staff have rocked my automotive world for amost 2 years now.
THANK YOU!
I’m very glad to see the car photos back in the banner at the top of the page.
Is there a better way to separate the ads from the text to make it look less like an abandoned URL? Maybe have them all on the side (instead of some at the top) or have a big vertical stripe that runs the whole length of the page.
I would move the “Receive Site Updates: RSS | RSS 2.0 | ATOM | Comments (RSS) | New Content Notifications” thing to the bottom. I have no idea how any of that works, so I’m assuming that the bulk of the people that will stumble to your site via google won’t either.
you must *must* MUST have the star summary. and if it’s not too much to ask, bring back the one phrase summary: perfect for pistonheads on a budget/the answer to a question no one asked/better than an aztek, but not by much, etc. etc.
Better, higher resolution, non-PR-fed photographs are definitely a help (photojournalism-style, not brochure-style)… especially when they can further the editorial content.
I’ve always thought a site that did common-sense reviews of popular used cars (TTAC should be more than capable of understanding the difference between owner neglect and common wear problems in that scenario) would fill a void.
The one-paragraph owner reviews that most car sites have aren’t terribly helpful (“This Kia Rio is the bestest car I’ve ever owned! KIA 4 EVA!
Like the idea of two pages. Allows you to focus more.
No need to try and be all things to all people on a single site, as it is now (sorta).
A split site allows us “insiders” to partake of what we love about TTAC (editorials), and gives you what you need (ads & a general audience for shopping cars).
If you had a link on the general shopping site to the editorial site (I’m thinking somethng along the ines of “TTAC Insiders”), that would be great. And the opposite: a link from the “insiders” page, over to the shoppers page.
Allows you to focus on the general audience (more commercial) site, yet still provides us hard-core junkies our daily fix of hard-hitting editorials.
P.S. That we devotees miss the [edit] and [insert link] functions is pretty clear to us all. :-)
doh… it choked on an open bracket when I made my cute girly heart symbol.
anyway… I was thinking of having a more intellectual used/common-sense car site with more original photo and video content up until I started coming up with cost/time estimates. You guys have my respect (and maybe some user submissions with the new format?)
Yes, photos of *the actual car reviewed* and thus unique to TTAC would be most welcome. Others have expressed the same sentiment.
Used cars? Sure. Could be fun. Retain the special TTAC way of reviewing them, and add some “what to watch out for” bullets (rust, sludge, whatever).
While our household prefers brandy-new cars, there seems to be a fair number of those who dislike the depreciation hit of a new car, etc.
Robert,
Consumer Reports with attitude? I would settle for Consumer Reports without bias. I think the notion of a consumer-focused auto advice site is a great idea and one that will generate revenue. I would like to see a site like that combine auto jounralist reviews with actual consumer reviews, then take hard mechanical and financial data to square up the qualitative and quantitative analysis. One thing you may also want to consider is more long-term testing. Most journalist reviews are based on only a few days (or even a few hours) behind the wheel. I would like to see reviews based on longer times in the seat as well as vehicles used in a variety of real-world situations (ie. if you wax eloquent about a sports car during a fabulous back road drive, also tell me how you like it in bumper-to-bumper rush hour traffic).
Whether you use your own photos or press shots is irrelevant to me unless you want to show something unique about the vehicle that occured during your tests.
Although the editorials form the core of your “brand” (if you will) you decribe them as a corollary to the main direction of your site (ie. come for the information, stay for the opinion). I think you’ve got to keep the editorials somehow front and centre (personally, one thing I like about the new site is the editorial sidebar).
Robert, your new site is ambitious especially when you add in the interactive consumer support elements. I will continue to support and make mention of your site. Add in some Canadian data (ie. what’s that in kilometers?) so shoppers in the GWN can get a little “truth” now and then!
You gotta pay the bills, so don’t worry about that. You probably will have to add some specs to your reviews for the “general public”, even though I find them unnecessary (if it is important somebody else has a copy…). The used car suggestion is a very good one, and would make your site fairly unique. Most of the dead tree mags have cribbed from the English and finally added some long term reviews to their mags, but are still a long way from an ideal. I have a suspicion that the average TTAC reader has owned a lot more cars than average, so used car reviews could be pretty informative. Thank you RF, a great site and a must read. And why are there so many people in Seattle reading your site? The governing class in this area hates cars…
I suggest adding functionality for readers to enter their own star ratings for the cars reviewed in addition to the editor’s stars. I can think of several sites that do this (e.g. cnet), showing the Editor’s Rating side by side with the Pistonhead’s Rating, but offhand I can’t think of any automotive sites that do. C&D allows reader ratings but they are quite separate from their edited work. Edmunds shows “Consumer Rating” but not the editor’s rating).
I think this would add value to the casual car shopper, allowing them to get more than one opinion regarding the car at a glance (i.e. without reading through scores of comments).
Also, this would increase reader participation adding to the “stickiness” of the site, which helps generate ad revenue and improves page rank. I think that casual readers that find a review weeks or months after initial publication would be more likely to participate in a reader’s poll than add written comments, adding to the long-term appeal of the reviews.
Spec lists in reviews are essential…I’m always annoyed when I have to hunt for the stuff like the RPM for peak horsepower and torque, for example.
More photos would be good. Reviewed-car specific pix would be fine if there’s something the reviewer wants to point out, or if the brochure photos obscure something.
For getting into consumer reports country, CSJohnson’s suggestion of longer-term reviews and making sure cars are reviewed in real-life circumstances would be a great help. You might even have to (gasp!) extend the 800-word limit for some of these in-depth reviews.
I have to say that while TTAC is must reading for me, right now I don’t rely on it for information on a wide variety of cars. No doubt that’s due to the startup nature of the site & may change with the new public homepage. Regardless, the site and its readers are great. Thanks for your hard work and devotion.
-Hell
There’s an awful lot to cover for a young and financially strapped web site. All of these suggestions help. But I think it may be even more helpful if we as contributors (passionate ones at that) focus on our strengths.
For example, I go through an awful lot of used cars as daily drivers over the course of the year (literally hundreds). Right now I have two late 90’s Volvo wagons, a Seville and Continental (don’t laugh, they’re great for highway driving), a Police Interceptor owned by the Chief of Police, a Mercedes E-Class, a 2002 5-speed Legacy, and a 5-speed Saab turbo convertible.
I’ve owned several versions of each of all these vehicles…. and as a contributor and frequent reader in their enthusaist forums, I’m well aware of the strengths, weaknesses, and the few modifications that can greatly amplify their driving performance.
So, since the bell of need has been rung, I’m going to try to due my part. Right after lunch…
My final thoughts:
As you’d mentioned elsewhere, a clear, important and useful differentiator would be:
“Why you should buy this car”
-vs.-
“Why you should not buy this car”
While they may not be aware, or would admit, people like (need?) to be *told* what to do.
See it all the time on a forum: “Should I get the base Mazda3, or the base Civic?” Or, “Should I get the Civic LX or EX?” the “Civic Ex or Civic Si?” the “Si or MazdaSpeed3?” Etc.
And a short list of competitors, if kept real, is also useful: Civic Si, MazdaSpeed3, VW GTI, etc.
Thanks for the opportunity of providing input.
:-)
“auto journalist reviews…actual consumer reviews…hard mechanical and financial data…qualitative and quantitative analysis.”
Problem there is, unlike us editorial junkies, most folks *scan* Web pages, not absorb them.
Thus why stars and “executive summaries” matter.
Great ideas!
The “stashed classic car” stories? YES.
The edit comment feature. WHAT’S TAKING SO LONG?
Lose the ads under the banner? PLEASE.
Relocate the RSS feed links? Can’t hurt.
On the last two, I think the goal here is to shorten the distance between the identity of the site (banner) and the meat of it (content). The splattering of ads front, center, side, and bottom is what gives the site the “parked URL” look & feel. We know you’re desperate, but do you really want to LOOK like you’re desperate? ;)
Photos of the *actual* car being reviewed? WONDERFUL. If I wanted to look at brochures filled with shots art directed to perfection, I’d go to the dealer.
Metric Measures? Fine by me.
–chuck
Another feature I really enjoy from C/D to Top Gear and all the rest is the idea of an editorial counterpoint… TTAC’s comments provide a good bit of debate, but the ability to have a single review contain at least one rebuttal before the comments section may be helpful.
___________________________________________________
There will also be a second home page for you, our faithful, hardcore audience. “TTAC classic” will return to the “old” format of reviews and editorials stacked in strict chronological order.
___________________________________________________
As long as the editorials are retained in the original style I will continue to read it daily.
Maybe someone should scan automotive news in other markets so as to integrate the data into the editorials. For example over the last couple of days there have been developments in Europe that affect the “Death Watches” for Ford but especially Daimler quite a bit.
Truth in the reviews
Truth in the editorials
The ability for the readers to interact directly with the authors and other readers
Those are what make the site invaluable to me. The rest is just packaging.
I think that lately there is a bit of a disconnect on some of the reviews; the last two were of Euro-spec models of cars. While both were usuful and good reviews, if TTAC is focusing on the US then it would be a good idea to limit it to US-spec models. If on the other hand you want to include the European market, then that needs to be kept in mind. What percent of TTAC readers are international?
The plan sounds fine to me. Gotta keep the editorials — they’re the heart of TTAC.
A suggestion for reviewers: driver’s observations are great, but skip styling critiques. That’s purely subjective, and we know what we think of a car’s looks.
I love the frank and unique insights from industry insiders and experts, whether they be managers, engineers, suppliers, assembly plant workers, mechanics, sales people, beancounters or whatever. No sugar-coating at TTAC!
You seem to be on the right track now, and I honestly enjoy the reviews on the site tremendously. If I could give one piece of feedback, it’d be that your (often excellent) writing’s “literate” message could appeal to a broad audience of both genders; but this sometimes squares poorly with more hot-rod-kid schoolboyish machismo, and an occasionally out-and-out misogynist choice of words or metaphors. If you want to appeal to a broader audience, stick to smart and funny, and stay away from politically polarizing messages or insulting gender stereotypes. That kind of stuff we can get from anyone; the smart stuff is much harder to get.
Truth in the reviews
Truth in the editorials
The ability for the readers to interact directly with the authors and other readers
Those are what make the site invaluable to me. The rest is just packaging.
My sentiments exactly.Kurks summed it up.
Rather than deluge you with my personal preferences, I’ll try to step back, with business hat on, and offer a few thoughts-
Firstly, it’s important to determine what the TTAC brand is, or what is supposed to be, and then to develop a plan to leverage that brand. If the new business plan or look doesn’t fit with that branding concept, then it needs to be reconsidered.
In light of that, I think that the two-home-page concept is a mistake, because it will confuse readers, all while it dilutes the branding. If the TTAC branding message is that “there isn’t much honesty in this biz, but TTAC is the exception to the rule,” then I think that you need to recognize that it is the editorials that most help to support that brand message. You need to avoid GM’s mistake of having overlapping brand messages, which simply confuses the consumer and harms all the brands involved — trying to maintain two brands here is as good as having no brand at all.
Secondly, there is a bit of a quandary to be addressed here. On one hand, the average reader is more interested in cars than in the industry, which makes the move to a review orientation tempting. On the other hand, there are far (far, far) more sites reviewing cars than there are sites covering the industry, and many of the industry-oriented sites serve paid subscribers, rather than laymen car enthusiasts you’d tend to find at TTAC.
Given that, I’d carefully assess whether reviews are really the place to hang your hat. Placing the emphasis on reviews puts TTAC directly into the headlights of numerous competitors that are larger and better funded than itself, with cavalcades of photographers, lots of sponsored time on the test track, and skidpad equipment. Given the branding discussed above, TTAC may find itself in tougher straits competing head-on against the larger players than it does currently, all while confusing the branding message that helped to build it in the first place.
Given that, I think that this current two-column format could be OK, as could a return to the old format. But either way, you need more articles on the front page than you currently have now in order to help with gaining hits and the search engine optimization effort. Having three reviews and two editorials isn’t enough. I’d suggest looking at some of the other sites that generate a lot of traffic, and noting that there is a reason why they put so much onto their front pages.
This is a terrific site, and building it is a noble goal. I’d just be careful as to how you go about it, lest you make some of the same errors that are made by the Deathwatch “honorees.” Be very careful with the branding, and remember that being the leader in a relatively small niche can sometimes offer a much better strategy than is being a tiny fish in a huge pond.
I love the idea of some late model used car reviews as well. I am not sure if that really helps this site in its questo to become a new car shoppers review, but it would be interesting to us readers. I would rather read the reviews and long term comments about the driveability of a Porsce 996(1999-2004) than a review of a new Toyota Yaris for example. Also I don’t think it matters if you must have some ad banners. Just no annoying pop ups please! Keep up the good work!
And bring back edit and maybe a spell check please:)
It’s all good. Just make sure you leave enough time to keep the comments moderated.
I’m not blowing smoke when I say that beyond the editorial content it is the caliber and intelligence of the comment section that keeps me coming back for my TTAC fix. Let it devolve into the garbage that is all too typical on the ‘net and I will probably lose interest.
Totally agree with Pch101.
In my opinion, the editorials have been the heart of soul of TTAC. Dropping them would emasculate the site and frankly, make it irrelevent to a large portion of your readers. As for reviews, whether of new cars or old, they are ok but not what draws a daily faithful audience. I look for a review when I want to buy a car, which is not that frequently. On the other hand, I come to TTAC daily to read the uniquely honest and hard hitting editorials I can’t seem to find anywhere else.
Stick to your core mission instead of “trying to be all things to all people”. You guys are great – please don’t become like most other insipid auto sites.
DO NOT eliminate the editorials. Where else can we get a perspective of business like the “Deathwatch” series puts forward. Right or wrong it broadens one knowledge beyond what the PR flacks and apologists spew.
I also vote to have you keep editorials. This place is different enough to be worth bothering with, keep your opinions coming, in editorials as well as reviews.
Just dont go sell to microsoft or google. Not yet.
I like the current format for car reviews which talk more about the emotional feel of a car than dry statistics. But you could add a couple of fun twists.
1) I still feel TTAC would take the podcasts to the next level and do a YouTube type video on cars similar to the 5th Wheel. I just think the irrevent style of TTAC would play well on a short video clip,
2) There are precious few used car reviews out there, but lots of interesting used car propositions. For example a CTS-V might not be the best choice new at around $50k, but a 2 yr old CTS-V is around $35k which puts things in a very different light.
Pch101 (curtis5309):
One of the great things about TTAC is that our brand positioning is right there in the title: the truth about cars. It tells the world that our automotive reviews and editorials are not tainted by commercial considerations. It is a promise to both ourselves and our readers.
It is also our Unique Selling Point.
Other than Consumer Reports and kbb.com, there is not a single automotive website or printed information source that provides no-holds-barred, independent automotive information. You cannot tell me that the millions of dollars worth of press cars, junkets and advertising funneling through Edmunds or Car and Driver do not influence their editorial choices– because they do.
But I take your point. With our limited resources, going up against the giants, to become “another” car review site, is madness. So be it.
In fact, I am calm in the face of this enormous, against-all-odds task. I know that the average consumer wants the truth about cars. (Buying a car is, after all, their second largest purchase.) I know that many– not all– will recognize the truth when they see it.
TTAC now has a path to profitability. Reviews > data > sales.
That last piece of the puzzle– a car brokerage service that negotiates a car sale for the consumer– will also put us ahead. Think about it. All the big review sites are in the “lead generation” biz. That’s their bread and butter. But leading consumers down the garden path and into the clutches of car dealers serves the website’s needs, not the consumers.
I’ve said it before. I’ll say it again. In this internet age, the big question in the car business is this: who owns the customer? Dealers don’t. Consumers don’t trust them. The car manufacturers don’t. They’re too large, impersonal and inefficient. The trad media don’t. They’re tainted by corruption.
By actively representing the automotive consumer, by providing them with the truth about cars AND the truth about THEIR car, TTAC will own the automotive consumer. We will do this by always acting in their best interest.
As for editorials, well, it would be hard for me to stop writing, commissioning and editing them. But I don’t think the casual shoppers give a damn about whether or not Aston Martin’s management proactively divorced the company from Ford. Or GM’s latest management corporate tit sucking.
So I’m moving them off home page 1 for home page 2. There will be a link to them; perhaps just the headlines. Pistonheads will find them through the New Content Notifications or links from other sites or from the headlines on home page 1.
But dammit man, we need to make money. I’m tired of paying my writers bubkiss. I’m tired of not being able to send my editorialists to press conferences, auto shows and industry events. I’m tired of running this sucker on a shoestring.
I tried to fit into normal society. I’ve worked for over a dozen media organizations. As far as I’m concerned, there’s no going back. We WILL realize our ambitions without sacrificing our values and beliefs. We are The Truth About Cars. It’s death or glory.
PS The edit function cometh.
As soon as TTAC shifted gears to the new format, the lights went out for me.
Call it a Zen rock garden, or a minimalist lounge, something more was lost. For me, that something was the uniqueness of the TTAC experience. All I want is a tastefully decorated sanctuary, where super smart writers entertain my ass off. Edmunds lite ? No thanks. I mean really, is there anything worse than a mainstream automotive journalist ? Most of them are the most dysfunctional people on the planet. TTAC’s writers seem to be the kind of people you’d like hang out with at a BBQ in Robert’s backyard. And perhaps that’s where our connection to TTAC lies. It’s not really all the stuff we can stuff into this site. It’s Robert, the writers, and the readers, who make you feel like you just got an upgrade from coach to first class.
Johnny Canada:
Two more weeks, max. We will be beautiful again. I promise.
One of the “special” characteristics of TTAC is the emotional and historical component. For example, many writers and posters clearly feel betrayed and saddened by one or another auto company that has in their view betrayed the company’s traditions, customers, and workers. Sometimes these feelings are similar to those of long-time residents of an elegant old city neighborhood that is threatened by high-rise glassed-in structures or too-trendy shops. On TTAC, feelings like this are valued and the venting is prized. Nostalgia too is valued, witness the autobiographies and the many posters who in response recount their own growing up experiences with cars. There’s just an emotional depth to TTAC that’s perhaps its trademark. So long as the emotional side is moderated by the editors when it’s too over-the-top, it gives the site much of its flavor.
Robert,
How could you do car sales off the sight? There are options for online purchasing (carsdirect, autobytel etc) but so many people buy with a trade in or buy a payment (even worse) that I am unsure how the sight could lead people to direct sales. Could you in good conscience sell me a GM minivan or a Jeep Compass?
We’re looking to establish a relationship with a car broker: a guy who contacts dealers on the customer’s behalf and negotiates a deal.
The broker would have to tell the truth (as is our wont). But if an Uplander is the [fetid] apple of the customer’s eye, well…
Robert,
I echo Johnny Canada’s sentiments 100%.
Secondly, the editorials and the reviews are equally important on TTAC. Those who claim to only be interested in reviews if car shopping are missing the point. For example, I’m not in the market for an M5, but I’ve always been a fan of the car. Your M5 review several months ago surprised and enlightened me…while the mainstream automotive press was heaping praise on the car, TTAC wrote the truth. I appreciate that. “…whether or not Aston Martin’s management proactively divorced the company from Ford. Or GM’s latest management corporate tit sucking.” are also of supreme interest to me…insights into the inner workings of the automotive industry. Personally, I believe the front page should have (as it did) the first paragraph of all the new content, editorials and reviews. You see all the new stuff as soon as you hit the site.
TTAC’s content is what TTAC is all about. The content is what makes TTAC unique in the quagmire of BS automotive journalism.
If business requires TTAC to offer shopping services, ads, etc., then so be it…nobody expects you and your writers to do this superior work from the goodness of your hearts.
By all means, please do what it takes to make TTAC finacially viable. But please don’t lose the edge that the editorials give you. Without that you are little different than the other auto sites.
The writing of the editorials will keep the reviews honest and give them something to measure up to. What you have now is the close to the tone of C&D in the 60’s on their good days.
Also, Some of us do have some classic cars in the garage and those who don’t would like to. It’d be fanastic to hear from some of the owners about how they drive and why they own what they do. There’s many facets to being an auto enthusiast. Why just limit to what’s in the dealerships today?
RF:”Other than Consumer Reports and kbb.com, there is not a single automotive website or printed information source that provides no-holds-barred, independent automotive information. You cannot tell me that the millions of dollars worth of press cars, junkets and advertising funneling through Edmunds or Car and Driver do not influence their editorial choices– because they do.”
I disagree. Check out Phil Edmonston’s (Canadian) Lemonaid guides http://www.lemonaidcars.com/
He was sued for calling Japanese cars rustbuckets back in the 70s and is still going strong. His review for the Focus several years ago started with “What was Ford thinking”…
He’s at 1.5 million sold and counting.
Sounds like RF will be “careful with the branding.” TTAC has a soul and it’s obvious.
As for “being the leader[s] in a relatively small niche,” that is what makes companies like BMW and Honda so compelling.
Fact is, Mr. Honda began building cars (instead of just motorcycles) against the wishes of his own national goverenment. An interesting man.
So you’re inspiration for building something “in the face of [an] enormous, against-all-odds” situation, RF, has some auto-relavent precedent.
Leaders lead. The rest follow.
Best wishes.
I really enjoyed the old sites design. It was just flat nice all around. And it was unique.
Brainstorm ideas:
Who is the demographic of TTAC? Maybe you can take ads, but not from car companies? For example, if you know that the typical reader is male, is 29-45 years old, maybe Apple or Zales or Pioneer would be non-auto companies that would want to advertise.
How do you market TTAC? Has anyone created a video review and posted it on Youtube to have another avenue of driving traffic to TTAC?
What about a premium content model vs. regular content? If you want a more “expert” review, you can pay $3/month or something nominal like that. (Of course grandfathering those of us here now ).
I would love to see something such as this:
I have $10k/15k/20k/25k to spend on a car. What car should I get that would be the most fun to drive but still be relatively economical to maintain? List any new/used cars that meet this criteria and have readers submit their votes. Keep a tally live. The Yaris is a tiny shitbox, but for the same money, you can get xxx that’s 2-3 years old, is a lot more fun.
Good luck and keep up the great work on this site!!
I take a look at TTAC every day of the #$@% week, mainly for the editorials.
Along with most of your readers over 35 (good GOD), I grew up with CAR & DRIVER and a rainbow of other car mags. I still get C&D, mainly because I can’t drag the computer into the bathroom, but I find the publication increasingly co-opted by their advertisers (what the hell are ‘guest editos’ doing pitting Ford Fusions against Camries, again?), and getting less and less relevant. Sad, sure, but true.
TTAC, on the other hand, ascends. The DEATH WATCHES, especially, touch a nerve with me. I’m assuming that most of us car nuts want the 2.5 to survive, and even flourish. All of us have better ideas than the execs (just read the posts!), but once in awhile someone makes a comment that puts it all in context: These are HUGE companies with massive strengths and hardcore problems.
C&D never addresses these issues. They talk about individual cars. I’m interested in the whole thing.
I look forward to the re-redesign, and I’m with you, all the goddamn time.
This may be silly and complicated, but how about developing the enthuisiastically bitter community that is the TTAC faithful? We already have registered accounts and mostly everyone (not me) is articulate. Why not give us “carspace” type pages where people can share their thoughts on what they own. Everyone has shared their story of their 1-100 year old car and how they feel about it on a TTAC board. This publically availble user experience could be a way to get around the reviewing of 2-3 year old cars. This idea is flawed in that it has already been poorly exicuted (www.boompa.com) and owner reviews will be slanted toward “great”. But, you’re the answer guy, you ponder this.
TTAC made me enjoy cars and everything about them again. I look forward to the new (old) look.
Keep up the fantastic work.
The redesign back to “classic TTAC” is welcome. The revenue model based on advertising revenue is the most viable, but that requires more readers that you have now. To this end, why not forge relationships with other published authors/magazines to post “best of” articles. You could be a “one-stop” website that frees the rest of us from navigating the airspace for what we want.
Good luck on the brokerage idea: it has possibiities, but I think you will find that human capital is an impossibly unrealiable variable. Instead, why not collect a fee from the dealerships, serving as a lead generator like carsdirect or autobytel. You deliver readers to dealers. Your readers on on their own to negotiate. But I wouldn’t quit your day job. Oh, wait, this is your day job.
I hope TTAC never stops writing editorials, they are what first attracted me to the site in the first place.
RSS 2.0 tip to Safari users – choose this feed option and you’ll get the minimalist look & feel again in your browser – you get just about the entire 800 words at a time, as long as there aren’t too many words, articles in chronological order. Not to mention plus bookmarking the URL on the toolbar tells you how many new articles are waiting. (I can’t wait for the return of the old home page for my WinXP work computer.)
TTAC.com now is up to 3rd in Google searches of “TTAC” thanks to the purchase of the domain name where it was previously 6th or 7th. A great purchase! hope it didn’t cost too much, and may it move up to number one soon.
In the meantime, I”m looking forwards to TTAC/ttac.com merchandise – CafePress store, RF?
Robert,
How about a ‘tech tip’ section on the ‘general public’ page. It could contain articles such as the oil changing info recently posted, and other info such as how does a turbocharger work, what is heel and toe shifting, etc. If well written, this could bring the general public back for more.
Also, I’d like to see links to Michael Karesh’s website; I find this a lot more helpful than Consumer’s Report.
Other than that, don’t quit doing anything you’re currently doing. I love the edgy car reviewsand the personal interest stories. You can’t get that stuff anywhere else.
Since I’ve been here, this site has been redesigned several times and I still don’t understand why.
I agree with Michael Karesh’s comments and I also feel that a “Used Car Classic” type of review would be very helpful.
While I’m not one on comparison reviews, I could see a need to do a comparison between a new car and a used car at the same price point (what would you buy, a new Saturn Sky Redline or a 3 year old Porsche Boxster?).
Finally, keep the editorials coming as I feel it is the backbone of the site. If anything, expand the 800 word limit so as to allow the editorial authors to really get their thoughts out.
Two sites, two brand names…
Does this mean various articles will appear on both sites?
Please make sure not to badge engineer TTAC!
Apart from that, I don’t think reviewing used cars is a great idea. Sure, it would work in some cases, with cars like Ye Olde 911 (74-90), to see how good, cool, fun and reliable they still are, but I don’t really think TTAC is the place where I’d like to read EXACTLY how bad that 96 Dodge Stratos really is. I hope though that wasn’t what you were aiming for in the first place.
Lastly, he stars rating would be nice…
So the 300 get to drive Buicks while the masses drive Chevys? Never a good idea to dilute your product, or we’ll be reading the ttacs death watch. Nothing wrong with the current site that can’t be fixed.
the banter podcasts are good. Banter seems to be what podcasts are about. What happened to the Jalopnik banter, I’m sure it was timeconsuming for you and the bandwidth for downloads I’m sure was expensive. Make herr Leiberman do he’s goofy, that’d be fun. Better yet, get the GMDW series mentioned on NPR or Slate. It would raise visability amoung domestic hating granola eaters. Good for a buzz.
TTAC’s ‘300’, huh? Heh, God only knows there’s enough skewering that goes on here. :)
I haven’t read all the comments so far, but I agree in bringing back the edit functionality. However, make sure you limit the time allowed to make edits, maybe up to 30 minutes past first posting. You don’t want to allow people to change history too far after the fact.
I think that your message is muddled if you say that there are two different truths about cars now. One is for “us,” and the other for them.
If you want to include exclusivity in your business model, why don’t you make TTAC a Members Only site? People would be falling all over themselves to join, and that could create more advertising revenue.
TTAC truly does represent something original. I think you should stick to the plan and let it continue to evolve. It must always be one place that provides information to everyone, whether they like it or not.
If you say you are changing the site to appeal to people who don’t even read it yet, you are also saying that a lot of readers who listened closely to your core, undiluted message aren’t the ones that you are trying to reach anymore. That’s confusing.
Tweaking the site is not the end of the world. Don’t be afraid to hold all of your readers to a high standard. It has worked extremely well so far. Let the evolution continue and be patient just a little longer. Real money starts rolling in after you have laid a rock-solid foundation. Evidently that hasn’t happened quite yet. But it will.
We WILL realize our ambitions without sacrificing our values and beliefs. We are The Truth About Cars. It’s death or glory.
Bravo Mr. Farago!! With that attitude, you’ll make it. I’m not sure what the final TTAC look/feel will be, or even if there ever will be one, but I’m sure it won’t be “closed”.
Try, fail, adjust – it’s the only way to get ahead in life, and it’s been great fun watching it happen here.
To the original question:
1) I’m not that big on the current look – I like the chronological mix of reviews & editorials. I don’t get to visit every day, and it’s nice to be able to just roll back to “oh, yeah, I remember that one” and move forward from there.
2) Thank God the edit feature is coming back! :)
3) Do what you have to do to bring in the cash to keep the site running and the writers fed. Without them, all the high ideals in the world are just empty wishes. I say that with the confidence that this won’t ever become “just like the other site”, since that’s the stated goal.
4) Whatever the next layout is, I’ll be back so long as the content is of the same high quality.
5) Used reviews would be great. The new X vs 2 year old Y is probably a common question. As is the used X vs used Y. For those looking to buy used, some qualitative insight would be great in addition to the quantitative (Consumer Reports/True Delta).
“They understand that those who have a vested interest in falsehood, half-truths and misdirection actively oppose our efforts” – Robert “Kenobi” Farago
RF,
Just a thought: You called us your “300”, but there are many more of us than that. You’ve got a veritable army of designers, engineers, car dealers, mechanics, and other sorts of car buffs from around the world. Use us to your fullest advantage.
For example, there’s no need to send someone to a location for a car show or press event, if you’ve already got a reliable writer on the scene. For the truly dedicated among us, looking to break into the automotive journalist realm this would be a great opportunity. Every year I go to several car shows, both new and classic. Perhaps if someone were to prove themselves with 2 or 3 well written editorials, they could be officially be named TTAC roving reporters? I’m sure a few of us would jump at the chance…
Just my two cents. I’ve been a long time reader, but since you asked, I figured I should speak up. I truly enjoy the writing here, especially the editorials. They really give a unique look at the automotive industry, you can’t find articles like this anywhere else. Believe me, I’ve looked.
-Steve
sounds good to me – for me its the writing – form is irrelevant – however, the double masthead is cool.
TTAC Deathwatch 1.0, or not.
I think the car guys here have carved out a unique notch or nitch for themselves. And to turn it into a more attention getting (traffic getting) site may just need to include video as an earlier poster hinted at.
I find the “top Gear” videos on google and youtube to be quite entertaining. And like the other video series’s that have made the news like “blend this” and “lonelygirl” TTAC Video may be a really good idea to build traffic. And if you define your nitch well in video you may just have something. So Robert, check out some of those video series that have been seen on the news, and NBR.
My brother got all the big name car mags growing up, I never got into them, and still don’t. I’m not that interested in cars other than the one I’m currently driving, but reading about the car biz is pretty neat to me. That’s TTAC for me, and that puts this blog into the business category, not really the car review category. But there are more car lovers here than car biz lovers like me here, I believe. And yet we all stay, and contribute.
When I go looking for a car I usually base my choice on past performance. While thinking of the name “truth about cars” I think about how a model performs in more than 0-to 60. I wanna know how many times its gunna need to be towed. And TTAC does have the opportunity to not only track ownership, but to chronicle the quality of design over time, and present that to car buyers. And to do it with unique style.
I also really love Tom and Ray and their goofy discussions about car problems. Listen to a few shows and you eventually discover there are a few cars, or models with some recurring problems. And they do poke fun at some pretty goofy engineering positions taken by Saab, Audi, and some others over the years.
TTAC is unique, and as long as you keep what you have you’ll be ok. You just need more traffic, then the ad revenue will roll in a little faster. But than some video equipment may set you back a little in the short run.
I use to like to watch Motorweek on pbs, I don’t know if they are still around, but they offered a nice Everyday driver’s review of the cars they were looking at, and then ran it on their test track for brakes and you got to see it slosh through the turns, they made comments if it just made too much of a big turning arc, had really bad blind spots, etc. These guys had a few test drivers of different tastes, weights, and heights. You got to see tall people squeezing into the back seat of little 4 doors, it was pretty neat.
You might even want to add several layers to comparison charts, ” If you currently drive a Camry, you might really like this car…..”
I even like the reviews here, and I think its not that I have an interest in the model under review, its more the unique style of the review itself. You guys are very artfull at describing cheap, and Saab-Chevy blazers.
“Its really a Chevy Blazer with the ignition key between the seats” Is one of the most entertaining reviews I have ever read.” Its really a Chevy Blazer with the ignition key between the seats” Is one of the most entertaining reviews I have ever read. “Its really a Chevy Blazer with the ignition key between the seats” Is one of the most entertaining reviews I have ever read. And yes I know I repeated it 3 times.
The home page 1 and home page 2 is great, it may even be something I wrote about in an earlier “how are we broken piece” 99% of you will never know it. And you will fill the expectations of more visitors.
And a special treat for all of us hungry for the look of “ttac-classic” here is a screenshot of the ttac I thought looked best.
http://members.aol.com/tanboy77/TTAC/ttac-screenshot-classic.jpg
later.
How about word or character limits on these posts? Folks need to be challenged to get the message across concisely (just as TTAC writers are) instead of rambling on. Makes it difficult to follow the running commentary.
Agree w michael karesh – used car reviews would be good – 2-3 years old